Fehér György szerk.: A Magyar Mezőgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei 1992-1994 (Budapest, 1994)

11. Nemzetközi Gazdaságtörténeti Kongresszus, 1994., Milánó (llth International Economic History Congress) - FEHÉR GYÖRGY: Agricultural associations in Hungary in the late 19th century

influence among them. The Association was built on firm professional basis, because among its members were the most outstanding theoretical and practical experts of home agriculture in addition to the big land owners playing a leading role in the home agrarian production and policy. Regarding its agrarian policy and economic philosophy it represented a mentality that can be said conservative reflecting with this the basic group interests of its membership. Along with the preservation of the unhealthy predominance of large estate, the limitation of free alienation of land property, it required to enhance the supports for the agriculture, to increase the state assistance. At the same time in most cases its views maintained on the development, technological renewal of the home agriculture and its actions can be regarded as very progressive. However it is necessary to emphasize that it supported every change only within the existing properly structure, absolutely considering the interests of big landowners. If this basic interest became damaged, than it made concessions rather in professional questions. It played a leading role among the home agrarian associations, it was the initiator in organizing the various occasional interest groups — living for shorter or longer time. These groups had been formed around him and it had decisive influence on them. Summarizing the activity of agrarian associations in Hungary in the 19th century, like some contemporary critics we also consider the efficiency of home associations, as insufficient. We miss mostly the sharp safeguarding of interests. However, we cannot agree with the sentences criticising in their work that they made efforts "only" to increase the standard of agriculture, instead of safeguarding of interests, since this was a general interest of the changing Hungarian agriculture. Examining the work of mentioned societies we can formulate as criticism that they could win in general only a low percent of land owners and even in the management of village societies, wher the farmers owning minor lands were predominant, the will of big estate owners came across. The unconcern and indifference of the big estate owner layer impressed against the safeguarding of interests through the agrarian societies. At the same time it did not really permit the self-organizing of minor estate owners, or if it did, than it occupied the organisation handling its management. This occurrence can be well observed at the formation and activity of home co-operative movement. Reviewing the history of home agricultural associations we can state that one part of our agrarian society — mostly the smallholder peasantry being in majority — directly could not enjoy the benefit of activity of these organisations qualified for spreading of the professional values, safeguarding of interest. In the lack of middle class peasantry having strong financial basis the representatives of big estates occupied the leading role in the agrarian societies, who used these organisation first of all for enforcing their own interests. However, these ambitions from time to time did not coincide with the universal interests of modernization of our agrarian economy.